Curt Doolittle

Theme: Responsibility

  • THE DESPERATE ATTEMPT TO PRESERVE THE TERM “LIBERTARIANISM” NOW THAT ROTHBARDIAN

    THE DESPERATE ATTEMPT TO PRESERVE THE TERM “LIBERTARIANISM” NOW THAT ROTHBARDIANISM IS FALSIFIED.

    SOVEREIGNTY(made) !=FREEDOM(given) != LIBERTY(permitted)

    “Libertarianism is….”

    So, which thing are you talking about?

    Sovereignty?

    The earning of freedom (freeman)

    The liberty of the freed slave?

    The liberty of license to retain local laws?

    The liberty of taking license with norms?

    The Liberty of the french – political equality?

    The Liberty of the English – permission from the crown

    The Libertarian of the American – against marxism

    The Libertarian of the Rothbardian – against commons.

    One asks permissions from god and permissions from the government. A sovereign simply *IS* sovereign because his agency cannot be imposed upon by a third party.

    Which of those two are the origins of western civilization?

    Liberty, or sovereignty?

    HISTORY OF TERMS:

    —“At first of persons; of communities, “state of being free from arbitrary, despotic, or autocratic rule or control” is from late 15c.

    The French notion of liberty is political equality; the English notion is personal independence. [William R. Greg, “France in January 1852” in “Miscellaneous Essays”]”—

    —“Political sense of “person advocating the greatest possible liberty in thought and conduct” is from 1878. As an adjective by 1882. U.S. Libertarian Party founded in Colorado, 1971. Related: Libertarianism (1849 in religion, 1901 in politics).”—

    THESE ARE PERMISSIONS – NOT SOVEREIGNTY

    WHY DOES IT MATTER?

    The abrahamic use of half truths and terminological appropriation to grant meaning and authority or gravity or persuasive power to that which does not possess it.

    So. If as true, the political philosophy of libertarianism > anarcho capitlism was in fact invented by rothbard as the Rothbardian’s claim, then I have killed libertarianism (and I think that’s settled.)

    If you want to do as hayek did, and use the word libertarian to refer to classical liberalism. Well, that’s a part of the democratic revolution against aristocracy and the church by the middle class, as part of the enlightenment.

    If you want to recast the middle class pursuit of liberty by permission as an imitation of the origional sovereignty of western civilization, that might convey ‘meaning’ out of ‘ease’ but is is not TRUE.

    If you want to claim the basis of western civlization is LIBERTY AND LIBERTARIANISM that is simply false. It’s not even logically possible.

    HEROISM > SOVEREIGNTY > THE OATH/THE JURY/RULE OF LAW > MARKETS IN EVERYTHING

    That is the sequence and I can find no falsification of it.

    What I find is a lot of traditionalists trying to state falsehoods to preserve their malinvestments.

    THIS IS WHY I REQUIRE OPERATIONAL LANGUAGE: TO DEFEAT THE ABRAHAMIC TECHNIQUES OF DECEPTION.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-31 14:02:00 UTC

  • We can claim we are good. We can claim others are bad. We can demonstrate crime,

    We can claim we are good.

    We can claim others are bad.

    We can demonstrate crime, parasitism and predation.

    Or we can defend against crime, parasitism and predation.

    And defend against them in deed, word, and display;

    And in product, service, and information;

    And in trade, politics, and treaty;

    And in propaganda, conversion, and religion;

    And in reproduction, immigration, and invasion.

    Truth is enough.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-29 12:56:00 UTC

  • “People avoid responsibility while demanding liberty, failing to see that respon

    —“People avoid responsibility while demanding liberty, failing to see that responsibility naturally leads to liberty, total responsibility leads to sovereignty.”— Bill Joslin

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-27 12:32:00 UTC

  • IT’S JUST ‘CAUSE YOU’RE WELL INTENTIONED BUT IGNORANT (REALLY) I’m saying that (

    IT’S JUST ‘CAUSE YOU’RE WELL INTENTIONED BUT IGNORANT (REALLY)

    I’m saying that (a) you don’t need to be taught morality because it’s both in your genes and necessary for survival in existential reality – we have tested it. It’s just true. (b) What you have been taught as a means of obtaining mindfulness can be obtained by many ways, and of those ways you have been taught is one of the worst of them (c) one of the means of teaching such is by conflating the obvious and necessary and unavoidable with superstitious falsehood.

    Every religion teaches the same thing using different arguments. These arguments JUSTIFY what exists, by providing a FALSE explanation of what exists in lieu of UNDERSTANDING why it exists.

    They do not CAUSE it to exist whatsoever.

    What they CAN do, whether by Law (understanding of precise measurements), education (knowledge of general rules), or religion (empathy by storytelling) is increase the precision of those measures, rules, and analogies.

    The fact that you have been trained in one religion not ten, and that you understand one moral code not twenty, and understand one legal code, not one hundred, just means you’re ignorant of the alternatives.

    That’s all it means. That’s what the evidence shows.

    The value of christianity in the west was that it mirrored existing low clannishness because of higher pedomorphism (science) and higher verbal acumen (science) and reduction of friction from the lower clasesses (science). The germanicization of christianity resulted in individual protestantism and action vs replacing community catholicism and submission. And even today protestant countries are far higher trust and less backward and corrupt than catholic countries.

    The value of anglo legalism (viking-thinking, anglo-saxon thinking) is that it’s simply personally, commercially, and civically beneficial to demonstrate high trust to others.

    The problem with european and american atheism is that it’s NOT atheism but faith in 19th and 20th century pseudoscience. And the evidence is clear that the church (pseudorationalism, supernaturalism) cannot defeat pseudoscience.

    So if we are going to defeat pseudoscience, the only method of doing so is truth.

    Sorry. That’s all there is.

    Either you are defeated by the marxist/postmodernist/democratic secular socialist / universal human rights pseudosciences that were invented (psudo-scientific abrahamism) to exterminate the aristocratic civilizations, or you will use truth (law, eduction, science) to defeat them AND the supernaturalism of ancient abrahamism (judaism, christianity, islamism)

    You cannot use a more primitive form of lie (religion) to defeat a more advanced form of lie (pseudoscience).

    THat’s what the evidence is.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-26 10:31:00 UTC

  • You know, there are debates I can win, that I do not wish to win. That said, out

    You know, there are debates I can win, that I do not wish to win. That said, out of moral obligation to the commons I must win them. But I would prefer I was never challenged to win them. No man wishes to police his fellows. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-25 06:20:00 UTC

  • “CURT: ARE YOU A STOIC?”— My personal philosophy is not stoic, but martial. So

    —“CURT: ARE YOU A STOIC?”—

    My personal philosophy is not stoic, but martial. So I use heroism, duty and loyalty. I achieve mindfulness through working toward goals. I achieve security by trying to make or join an ‘army’.

    We all need philosophies that reflect our abilities. Not everyone finds joy in constant competition and the high cost of achievement and frequent failure. I find my philosophy difficult if not painful, but it is in that difficulty I find my power, conviction, and immunity from criticism. I do not consider it ‘suffering’ in the Nietzschean sense but Stress that makes you stronger in the sense Taleb means “anti-fragile”.

    But stoicism is a common person’s way of achieving the same thing. Stoicism is a self-directed philosophy of continuous improvement within the world, and aristocracy is a philosophy of continuous achievement through transformation of the world. However, in both models, you cannot be criticized, guilted, shamed, ridiculed by others. Both Martialism and Stoicism make you immune.

    To a lesser degree The Four Agreements Quotes by Miguel Ruiz are a far less sophisticated version that I have found overly sensitive women benefit from.

    And the meditation in buddhism is a less rationalistic way of achieving the same ends. I dont like it because it’s not action oriented.

    What really I don’t like is the prayer-and-rutual way of achieving it because you’ve actually abandoned reality at that point.

    But what you can see from that list is a hierarchy from the most empowered to the least empowered. And from what I can see buddhism is about as far as people should go in withdrawing from the world.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-21 11:19:00 UTC

  • THE RESTORATION OF THE DUEL: MORE HONEST AND POLITE SOCIETY I have lived in Ukra

    THE RESTORATION OF THE DUEL: MORE HONEST AND POLITE SOCIETY

    I have lived in Ukraine and spent time in russia, where a punch in the face is quick, expected, not uncommon, respected, and use of it keeps men fit. And it is a much more civil society. It is one of the principle reasons I prefer their society. For all our rule of law, without punching in the face, it is just a license for degeneracy.

    I remember when we still had a lot of punching in the face. I did quite a bit of it and received quite a bit of it. Because it was part of becoming a man: be careful with your word and deed because other men will not tolerate you. And I was small. So I get good at the ground game.

    Lessons of history are this:

    – An armed society is a safe society.

    – A punch-in-the-face society is a polite society.

    – A dueling society is an honest society.

    The duel works well because it (a) imposes constant caution in one’s words, allows for (b) immediate fights (rapid suppression), (c) immediate apologies (rapid de-escalation), (d) immediate silence, but demand for court trial instead. (e) satisfaction in a court trial. (f) far lower cost of settlement of differences and less malincentive to try to get away with impolite or dishonest words and deeds simply because the opposing party can’t resist you.

    The failure to innovate with ‘judicial dueling’ was that (a) pistols equalized the difference between swordsman or size (good), (b) but they were more deadly, where in swordfighting or knife-fighting, ‘one could collect an honorable scar’, and then surrender and apologize. (c) the combination of practice of substitutes, and the increase in size of the middle class with less ‘cultured’ (intelligent) histories and access to better weapons, was what ended it, not the practice of duelling itself. Everyone had always criticized it. But for sovereign men there is no substitute.

    This is particularly useful if not necessary for controlling the gossip, ridicule, shaming, and rallying by betas and women. Since women have no possible chance unless very highly trained, men must warranty them, and therefore take responsibility for teaching them discipline.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-20 09:16:00 UTC

  • Outcome based ethics are what we use when we have sufficient information to judg

    Outcome based ethics are what we use when we have sufficient information to judge outcomes.

    When we fail to have that information we fall back upon general rules.

    When we fail to have that information we fall back upon virtues.

    When we fail to have that information we fall back upon myth and tradition.

    The reason we do this is that people (in fact, everywhere) hold us accountable for using the ethical model that corresponds to the information we are expected to possess.

    The reason for that is that it is very easy to claim a false positive by acting in your self interest by relying upon a less precise form of decidability. Ergo: virtue signaling, and claiming conviction to circumvent paying the cost of action. (ie: immigration)

    In fact, the entire marxist/postmodernist/libertarian/neocon program, is designed to create and exploit moral hazards precisely by the use of this technique of false positives.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-16 17:58:00 UTC

  • I have been and always will be, against all marital community property, alimony

    I have been and always will be, against all marital community property, alimony and child support, but not against fines for the person breaking the marriage. (spoken as a guy with multiple broken marriages. my first wife cheated. I broke my second marriage primarily due to my severe illness, and I broke my third marriage for reasons that I thought were her fault but were mine.) A women cannot regain her fertile years and a man cannot regain the proceeds of his excess production. But a woman can trade her vagina and personal care while a main can only trade his economic productivity and environmental care. Empirically speaking this leaves men at a great disadvantage. But either way, a divorce all but guarantees poverty in later life. IMO the millions I made were not ‘ours’ but mine. And had the court treated them as ‘mine’ then we would still be married. The central problem is that an individual cannot control the bad behavior of one’s spouse in modernity. As such we cannot have common property

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-16 10:05:00 UTC

  • THE OATH – FOR THOSE WHO WOULD BE SOVEREIGN (“Commandments” for those who would

    THE OATH – FOR THOSE WHO WOULD BE SOVEREIGN

    (“Commandments” for those who would obey.)

    “Christendom without Christianity.”

    1) Extend familial love to brothers in arms, first above all.

    2) Extend kinship love to the polity

    3) Extirpate hatred from the human heart.

    4) Show tolerance of honest error, intolerance of all else; and respect for those who earn it, and disrespect for those who don’t. Kneel to none.

    5) Speak the truth without exception.

    6) Master an art, a science, a craft, and a trade.

    7) Bear and raise children to be warriors, husbands and fathers of your grand children, and teachers, wives, and mothers of your grandchildren.

    8) Preserve, Maintain and Beautify the commons

    9) Safeguard the young, weak, and elderly.

    10) Take nothing not paid for, seek nothing not earned.

    11) Place no burden of notice, attention or impediment upon others.

    12) Perform and enforce restitution for all wrongs.

    13) Punish or kill the criminal, wicked, and lazy.

    14) Defeat and exterminate all enemies completely

    15) Leave life having transcended yourself, your line, your polity, man, and this land, closer to omniscience, omnipotence, sovereignty, and beauty.

    —“This is all via-positiva and would lend itself as an outline for a set of hero tales. Each tale explores the limits operations and consequences of the spectrum each line item above refers. Teach it to kids (duty) so they can emulate it as adolescents (virtue) and demonstrate it as adults (utility).”—Bill Joslin

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-16 02:35:00 UTC